Trilemma Update

On my blog, I have recently returned to working on an analysis and evaluation of the Trilemma argument for the deity of Jesus:

http://crossexamination.blogspot.com/search/label/Trilemma

Post #8 and on: Does the evidence from the synoptic Gospels for the premise that “Jesus claimed to be God” hold up under closer examination?

Posts #4 – #7: Most leading Jesus scholars reject the assumption that the Gospel of John is a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus, so we can safely ignore about 90% of the evidence that McDowell gives in support of the premise “Jesus claimed to be God”.

Post #3: A number of the passages McDowell cites from the Gospel of John are either unclear or irrelevant in relation to the premise that “Jesus claimed to be God”.

Posts #1 and #2: Introduction to, and analysis of McDowell’s Trilemma argument.

About Bradley Bowen
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969 Explicit Atheist

    Because someone else was rolling his eyes regarding philosophy while you appear to be writing philosophy, I took a look at your latest post. I must say it is good. It is clear, to the point, sensible, logical, effective. Writing like yours, that is easily accessible on the internet, is valuable because too many people take writers like McDowell more seriously than is warranted by the substance of his writing. Keep up the good work.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11739289997185607154 Colby Corsaut

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11739289997185607154 Colby Corsaut

    I was very grateful that you took the time and energy to run down all of the "Jesus scholars" and determine those among them that are majority for me, so I do not have to. Even more, it would require years to determine who among them are unbiasedly considered to be leaders and provide the substance of their claims to superiority over the minority. This would surely have been a difficult task that would have required years of research on my part, which we are now indebted to you for. I am also glad that you were able to do the statistical work related to the claims of McDowell in order to determine what percentage we can ignore in order to be safe from the premise that "Jesus claimed to be God", which is apparently a dangerous one. I would disagree with the explicit atheist critiques about the double standard of rolling your eyes at others philosophy while writing your own. I would do this because he comes right behind you and affirms your philosophy because it agrees with his presuppositions that are of course seen as good, clear, to the point, sensible, logical, effective, and valuable against those with whom he disagrees. (Who all are evil, confusing, avoiding the point, insane, illogical, ineffective, and invaluable) who is he to judge your eye rolling double standard, since your extensive logic and research accommodates his personal view nonetheless? As though evolution has evolved his morality more than yours or mine? I cannot wait until you release what most leading Jesus scholars think about the passages in question and what relevancy they do have, if any, as a piece of historical literature. I am brewing with anticipation.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05211466026535549638 Bradley Bowen

    Explicit Atheist said…

    …I took a look at your latest post. I must say it is good. It is clear, to the point, sensible, logical, effective. …Keep up the good work.

    ====

    Bradley responds:

    Thank you. I will.

    Most of my stuff on the Trilemma is historical rather than philosophical, but my background in philosophy and critical thinking helps me to clarify McDowell's logic, assumptions, and key concepts.

    ======

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05211466026535549638 Bradley Bowen

    Colby said…

    I would disagree with the explicit atheist critiques about the double standard of rolling your eyes at others philosophy while writing your own. I would do this because he comes right behind you and affirms your philosophy because it agrees with his presuppositions that are of course seen as good, clear, to the point, sensible, logical, effective, and valuable against those with whom he disagrees. (Who all are evil, confusing, avoiding the point, insane, illogical, ineffective, and invaluable) who is he to judge your eye rolling double standard…

    =====

    Bradley responds…

    If my critique of McDowell's Trilemma is clear, to the point, sensible, logical, and effective, this has no implication on whether the thinking of some well-informed Christian believers is clear, to the point, sensible, etc.

    You are thinking in black-or-white terms, assuming that there cannot be clear thinkers on both sides of a controversial issue. In attributing such black-or-white thinking to Explicit Atheist, you are also creating a Straw Man.

    A compliment for a clear thinking atheist is NOT an insult to all Christians or all theists.

    If you have an actual objection to one of my posts, please state it clearly and I will do my best to respond in kind.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X